Let us have a fact check.

[Belz...]

And the instructors said they could barely fly a cessna.

So they can barely fly a 757 or 767.

All we have is transcipts, not the actual recordings. What is on them would be suspect unless we can hear them for ourselves.

I suspect you would still find something to say if you could.

Mainstream media and a majority of Americans say that the confessions cannot be trusted because the CIA confession of waterboarding torture, and the fact that he has delusions of grandeur.

So NOW mainstram media says the truth ?

The FBI says they have no evidence that OBL was connected to 911. That means that the video is suspect.

No, that means it isn't conclusive.

It doesn'e even look like OBL.

Oh, yes it does. That old canard's 5 years old.

Evidence is not facts.

And speculation is not evidence.

I can agree with everything except the pentagon statement. We have never seen a clear video or picture of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Well that's ok, because I didn't see Bush order the inside job.

Everybody knows there were cameras pointed at the Pentagon.

That's nice. Evidence ?

The bombs wouldn't be on walls and on peoples desks, they would be behind the wall placed on the steel beams. I bet nobody saw any steel beams while they where being evacuated either, does that mean there weren't any?

So... they just teleported the explosives behind the walls ?

That is a biased website. That's the same as me posting prisonplanet URL's

Well of course. ANY website that has ANY opinion at all can be called biased and safely ignored. The hallmark of ignorance.

Everybody agrees that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel only weaken it. FEMA, 911 Commission and NIST. So where did the molten metal come from?

Just re-read your own paragraph.

EDIT: I see Gravy caught that one, too.

 

[VespaGuy]

Nicely put, dave. I'll add a few points from my experience as a truss designer...

trusses are engineered structures. In other words, you could acheive the same loading capacity with a truss that you can with a solid beam, only the truss will be designed with thin members which are in tension and compression and as a whole behave very much like a solid beam

The main advantage of trusses is that they are pre-manufactured which makes the erection process a breeze, even for layman; an entire standard gable roof can be erected in a day with just two laborers. Plus they are built to carry larger loads with smaller members (typical wood trusses are 2x4, and are 24" o.c. as opposed to 2x10/2x12 @ 12 or 16 o.c.)

And like any other structural component, trusses are over-designed. The design factors include wind loads, snow loads, and drift loads (i.e. when a flat roof on a first floor abuts a second floor wall, the snow will collect there creating a much larger load then a standard snow load).

And there are other build factors. Other components used with trusses, such as hurricane clips, are rated at 1/3 of their average failure rate (if a hurricane clip fails at 1000 lbs, it will be rated to hold 333 lbs safely). But even knowing this, designers will never go above the manufacturer rating; if my truss has an uplift of 340 lbs, there is no way I would use the forementioned clip.

But what folks like WR don't understand is that it doesn't mean that I can saw a member in half and expect it to stay standing. As a matter of fact, if any damage what-so-ever occurs to a truss, the entire truss has to be re-engineered. There are plenty of times that a trusses is damagaed in transit, or cut in the field, or even simply notched for HVAC or plumbing work; in all of these cases, the entire truss is reengineered, and almost always a field 'fix' (usually involving plywood gussets) is required.

Is this shoddy engineering? Is this sloppy construction? NO! It's a matter of a truss that is no longer designed to do what it was supposed to.

Now, let's say something weird and wonderful happens and a meteor crashes down through the roof of this house.

As it passes into the roof space it breaks many of those members which are in tension and compression and form part of the roof trusses.

This damage means that some of the truses are no longer able to support the weight of the roof tiles.

Eventually the thin structural members which are undamaged are no longer able to maintain their integrity against the loads applied to them and they in turn fail.

Now the roof is collapsing.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There is also lateral bracing required to stop the longer members from buckling along their axis. THis is solved by bracing the members from one truss to the next. (The truss engineering designates this bracing to the framers). There is also diagonal bracing, which transfers lateral loads to the end walls (or shearwalls) of the building.

Damaging any of the bracing can lead to a complete failure of the roof system, not because it is poorly designed, but because it is a 'system'.

Now the second storey floor of this building was designed to support what would be termed a 'domestic load', i.e people and furniture.

That's called the live load. And the dead load is the weight of the materials themselves. (If I remember correctly, a standard residential floor live load is around 40 psf. Roof live loads vary region to region depending on annual snowfall, and hurricane conditions.)

And that is an analogy for how easily a structure can totally fail due to damage caused to one element of the structure.

Exactly.

I've mentioned this before, but I don't mind repeating it, in hopes that new lurkers and folks like WR may actually learn something... Firefighters hate trusses. They hate them. Hate, hate, hate them.

Why? Because they fail quickly and without warning. They are an economical, quick and strong building component, but because of their design they simply do not fail like a normal conventional buidling does. Because of this, many firefighters have been injured or killed fighting fires in trussed buildings.

 

[uk_dave]

That's the live load. The dead load is the weight of the materials themselves.

Hey! I was trying to keep it simple

But thanks for your input.

I sometimes come across people who want to have a loft conversion i.e a room in the roof space, only problem is they have roof trusses.

So, you tell them that we'll have to introduce all these extra beams in order to support the roof load, while they just think they can go up there with a rip saw and cut away the braces and nothing bad will happen.

So, as we can now see, the floor trusses of the wtc towers were engineered beams. Efficient, lightweight and cheap. But very vulnerable to damage and failure.

And upon those floor trusses depended the support of the thin concrete floor decks as well as the restraint of the exterior columns.

Take away one floor and you're placing a significant additional load on those columns.

Drop that floor on to the floor below and you're increasing the stress on the external columns.

Add to this significant damage to a number of those columns

And then add to that the effect of fire on unprotected steel.

And the collapse of the wtc towers is not so hard to imagine.

Unless you're a 'truther' who refuses to imagine...or does not have the intellectual capacity to imagine.

 

[Belz...]

Let's see, hmm the winsor fire

WTC fire

Winsor "collapse"

WTC collapse

Oh, yeah. Let's compare a steel core building with a smaller concrete core building, take snapshots during the night as opposed to daylight to make the fire seem more intense, and completely ignore the different circumstances of the collapses (767s come to mind). That'll do for some honest debating.

It fails based on the fact wtc was said numerous times to be over contructed, and redundant.

That's your contention. But "over constructed" doesn't mean "invincible", even it if were true. I'd like to know what kind of material could make the WTC towers resist that kind of punishment, aside from adamantium.

Your site "debunks" it by saying that after a few columns in the core are damaged that collapse was inevitable.

Yes, because skyscrapers are not generally built with the thought of crazed extremist terrorists ramming large jets at full speed into them.

Some how you want me to believe that putting 47 steel columns as a core somehow weakens it and makes more vulnerable than other historical examples.

Because steel sucks in a fire.

I am supposed to believe that a building that took damage on one side, where the top initially fell sideways came straight down

Well you have to realise that the main forced involved in the collapse is gravity, and that it happens to work DOWNWARDS.

in an avalanche of pulverized concrete through the path of most resistance within a manner of seconds.

The "path of most resistance" is a misnomer. Where, exactly, should that 30-storey mass have gone ?

Building 7 was not built like the towers, what happened debris hit it? Fires raged? How come it fell?

Seen this ?

 

[Gravy]

Did you make that composite Beiz? It's fantastic!

 

[stateofgrace]

Tower one was hit between floors 93-99/ WTC2 77-85, That means tower 1 had only 15% of the floors fall onto 85% of the floors. The higher the floor the thinner the steel. How many tons of solid intact structure is that. How did it become "dynamic" especially since it initially tilted.

Since this is in response to one of my posts I will respond.

You have no idea have you? Seriously what you are taking about, it is ok to admit it.
The Towers were not solid, they comprised of three separate but interlinked components. The inner core, the external columns and the floor trusses that braced the two together. The dynamic weight above fell onto the floor bracing, the non supporting part of the three components. The 15% you are talking about did not fall onto an object that was solid.

Why do cters have this concept that the weights above both crash sites were monolithic, completely solid falling onto another solid object. It was not. The majority of the weight in both cases fell onto the floors, the floors that could not support this weight. The falling weight was not solid it split, separated, around the core and was contained inside the external columns. As it fell the external columns were flung out way from the violent actions of the falling floors, which were being ripped away from the internal core also.

And apparently it can not offer any resistence at all either.

It did more than not bear your "dynamic load" theory it offered so little resistence that it barely slowed it down, only a few seconds.

What resistance? Where was it?

IT FELL ONTO THE FLOORS SPACES THAT WERE BRACING THE CORE TO THE EXTERNAL COLUMNS.

There was nothing to slow it down; there was no resistance other than that offered by the floor trusses.

Just nod and say you understand even if you do not.Other guys have explained to you, I doubt you will listen but I really could not care less after seeing your despicable post about Mark Binghams mother.

 

[Belz...]

Every time I call my mom I say "Hi mom, it's Firstname Lastname" No I say My name and she knows. That is suspicious to me.

Every time you call your mom, you're not a few minutes from certain doom.

Every other building collapse that occured from structural failure (that I have seen, examples welcomed if you don't mind holding off on the sarcasm) never turned to mountains of dust

Scale, Rights, scale.

Tower one was hit between floors 93-99/ WTC2 77-85, That means tower 1 had only 15% of the floors fall onto 85% of the floors. The higher the floor the thinner the steel.

Did you calculate the sum total of the force that this 15% created when it hit the remaining 85% ? You should.

How did it become "dynamic" especially since it initially tilted.

Oh, that's bad. How did it become "dynamic" ? IT MOVED.

Great, she got to make her son a hero.

You are one, despicable individual, Rights.

Nobody would do that huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of morality. I guess nobody has ever used deseased love ones to profit for themselves, or put the deseased in a heroic light, that never happens either.

Now, who's using speculation as evidence ?

 

[Belz...]

Did you make that composite Beiz? It's fantastic!

Nope, sorry. I'm good, but not that good.

I believe greyleonard made it.

But it does show how utterly compromised 7 WTC's structure must've been. Far worse than I had originally thought.

 

[uk_dave]

I was considering making a new thread, but since WR is eating supper and Lyte Merc has arrived on the scene I'll post it here instead.

We need a new challenge.

This challenge shall be a prediction.

What do you predict for 'truther' 2007?

Personally, I DO think it will be a good year for the truth, but not for the reasons the 'truthers' believe.

You see, it's become apparent over the last few months, that we've all established our respective positions.

And despite what some people would like to believe, the internet is still a minority sport.

So, 2007 is going to see the 'truth' enter the mainstream.

Avery has many pretenders to the throne now that he has been seen to be the fallible young man that he is. The BBC doc, coupled with the debate with Gravy has highlighted his flaws, and now even the hardcore of 'truthers' question his motives for getting into bed with hollywood, so to speak.

And with the increase in cheap (free) internet software for making movies, there are plenty who see themselves taking the exhalted position the virus in sneakers currently holds.

First we had the Pilots and their video, the name of which escapes me, but that's not important, as no doubt 300 million and several billion around the world were heard to say, because we also have the pantiecon...or something like that...in which eyewitnesses to the plane crashing into the pentagon state CATEGORICALLY that it didn't hit the light poles.

We also have our old fiend (sp? no it's ok I got it right first time) Killklown and his video of the shanksville crash, devoid of wreckage and bodies except for the wreckage and bodies they found there.... and even terrasell....young terrasell is planning his own vid............

...so what's my point I hear you ask from the back, well basically that yes, the 'truth' is going to get mainstream press coverage from those 'untrustworthy maintream pressers, unless they're reporting US' and the entranched opinions are going to become more entrenched and more vitriolic and P'doh! will have three sockpuppets and the scholars will not stop bickering amongst themselves.

And the 'truthers' will get excited.

Oh yes. Just witness the release of the wtc construction plans (plus the file no one can open).

They will be excited and energized and probably a few might orgasm, but ultimately, what we wil all witness will be the death knell of the 'truth' movement. For as they venture ever more into the sunshine of reality (I kinda liked that one) they will be cut and sliced and butchered by those who live not here in the rarified environs of the internet, but those who work for a living and will not suffer these fools gladly.

So, while there will be an upsurge of 9/11 belief, on the back of internet videos and charlie sheens tongue, it will, all too soon, be shown to be a modest swell and not the tsunami of fantasy they hoped for as those who actually know about which they speak are invited, at great expense, to appear on MSM and tear the 'truther' fantasies to shreds.

For what we are about to witness, though it may appear as if they have the toe hold they so desire, it will ultimately expose their fantasies to the cold light of day and soon, very very soon, the 'truthers' will be relegated to the ranks of those who just can't quite grasp that LH Oswald could have made those shots.

Sad but true.

(the $1,000,000 can be paid into my cayman islands account)

 

[hellaeon]

teehee...

I thought your weren't a conspiracy theorist WR?

 

[hellaeon]

UK Dave: My thoughts? I expect the marshmellow man from ghostbusters to make a cameo in a conspiracy theory near you!

 

[LashL]

I've mentioned this before, but I don't mind repeating it, in hopes that new lurkers and folks like WR may actually learn something... Firefighters hate trusses. They hate them. Hate, hate, hate them.

Why? Because they fail quickly and without warning. They are an economical, quick and strong building component, but because of their design they simply do not fail like a normal conventional buidling does. Because of this, many firefighters have been injured or killed fighting fires in trussed buildings.

Indeed.
"Beware the Truss" is a warning that firefighters are intimately familiar with.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Lets not confuse scientific process with judicial process ok. Scientists do not look for evidence prosecutors do.

Classic.

Scientists employ the scientific method. The scientific method is described by Wikipedia as "a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning."

 

[firecoins]

UK Dave: My thoughts? I expect the marshmellow man from ghostbusters to make a cameo in a conspiracy theory near you!

Dan Ackroyd is huge into the UFO conspiracies. Since he wrote ghostbusters, don't be surprised if he advocates the marshmellow man theory.

 

[Belz...]

Well he did visit New York at least once, already.

 

[hellaeon]

Lets not confuse scientific process with judicial process ok. Scientists do not look for evidence prosecutors do.

So many quotes. So few stundies.

 

[VespaGuy]

I sometimes come across people who want to have a loft conversion i.e a room in the roof space, only problem is they have roof trusses.

So, you tell them that we'll have to introduce all these extra beams in order to support the roof load, while they just think they can go up there with a rip saw and cut away the braces and nothing bad will happen.

Yup. I see that all the time. I'm sure to tell folks this upfront when they are trying to decide between conventional framing and trusses. When they are weighing the benefits, I always mention the limitations of future expansion.

I also see plenty of folks who just cut or drill when faced with plumbing and ventilation hits. The building inspector always makes them get a 'repair', even when they remove as little as a 1/4" of material.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Every time you call your mom, you're not a few minutes from certain doom.

To be strictly honest, that is entirely dependant on whether or not I remembered her birthday...

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

These are from earlier in the thread, but they so deserve to appear next to each other...

Evidence is not facts.

Countless people heard bombs, that is evidence. Firefighters said they seen flashes in the lower floors, that is evidence. Molten metal in the sub-levels that is evidence. Molten metal pouring from the tower, that is evidence.

This, in...

. . .a thread dedicated to the facts. . .

Good job, Without Rights. You've failed at your own game.

 

[Without Rights]

It was designed with stronger floor trusses in order to allow some floor trusses to be removed. This is how Solomon Brothers were able to build there trading spaces.

This would not be possible with the towers.

WTC 7 collapsed in an entirely different manner then the towers.

Your right that was my point.

If it was the unique design of WTC1/2 that caused them to fall, what about building 7. It was a different design, was it also a shotty design as I heard someone say about 1 & 2.